Not able to understand the solution of a simple math problem

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I was practicing the following beginner level problem at codechef




Santosh has a farm at Byteland. He has a very big family to look
after. His life takes a sudden turn and he runs into a financial
crisis. After giving all the money he has in his hand, he decides to
sell some parts of his plots. The speciality of his plot is that it is
rectangular in nature. Santosh comes to know that he will get more
money if he sells square shaped plots. So keeping this in mind, he
decides to divide his plot into minimum possible square plots so that
he can get maximum profit out of this.



So your task is to find the minimum number of square plots that can be
formed out of the rectangular plot.



Input



The input consists of T number of test cases. T lines follow. Each
line consists of two integers N and M which denotes the length and
breadth of the rectangle.



Output



Output is a single line which denotes the minimum number of square
plots that can be formed



Constraints



1<=T<=20

1<=M<=10000

1<=N<=10000



Input:



2



10 15



4 6



Output:



6



6




My approach was there could be large number of possible small squares as there are squares of size 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., min(length, breadth).



So I would sum them up.



But when I went through the other people solutions, all of them are doing it as follows:



$$ans = frac(length*breadth)gcd(length*breadth)^2$$



Can anyone explain me how the above equation is an answer to the given problem and how is it derived. The reason why am I asking for help is I just don't want to copy paste or memorize this formula, rather I want to understand the steps how they came to this equation OR it is a standard formula which I am yet unaware of.



Any help is much appreciated.







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    I was practicing the following beginner level problem at codechef




    Santosh has a farm at Byteland. He has a very big family to look
    after. His life takes a sudden turn and he runs into a financial
    crisis. After giving all the money he has in his hand, he decides to
    sell some parts of his plots. The speciality of his plot is that it is
    rectangular in nature. Santosh comes to know that he will get more
    money if he sells square shaped plots. So keeping this in mind, he
    decides to divide his plot into minimum possible square plots so that
    he can get maximum profit out of this.



    So your task is to find the minimum number of square plots that can be
    formed out of the rectangular plot.



    Input



    The input consists of T number of test cases. T lines follow. Each
    line consists of two integers N and M which denotes the length and
    breadth of the rectangle.



    Output



    Output is a single line which denotes the minimum number of square
    plots that can be formed



    Constraints



    1<=T<=20

    1<=M<=10000

    1<=N<=10000



    Input:



    2



    10 15



    4 6



    Output:



    6



    6




    My approach was there could be large number of possible small squares as there are squares of size 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., min(length, breadth).



    So I would sum them up.



    But when I went through the other people solutions, all of them are doing it as follows:



    $$ans = frac(length*breadth)gcd(length*breadth)^2$$



    Can anyone explain me how the above equation is an answer to the given problem and how is it derived. The reason why am I asking for help is I just don't want to copy paste or memorize this formula, rather I want to understand the steps how they came to this equation OR it is a standard formula which I am yet unaware of.



    Any help is much appreciated.







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      I was practicing the following beginner level problem at codechef




      Santosh has a farm at Byteland. He has a very big family to look
      after. His life takes a sudden turn and he runs into a financial
      crisis. After giving all the money he has in his hand, he decides to
      sell some parts of his plots. The speciality of his plot is that it is
      rectangular in nature. Santosh comes to know that he will get more
      money if he sells square shaped plots. So keeping this in mind, he
      decides to divide his plot into minimum possible square plots so that
      he can get maximum profit out of this.



      So your task is to find the minimum number of square plots that can be
      formed out of the rectangular plot.



      Input



      The input consists of T number of test cases. T lines follow. Each
      line consists of two integers N and M which denotes the length and
      breadth of the rectangle.



      Output



      Output is a single line which denotes the minimum number of square
      plots that can be formed



      Constraints



      1<=T<=20

      1<=M<=10000

      1<=N<=10000



      Input:



      2



      10 15



      4 6



      Output:



      6



      6




      My approach was there could be large number of possible small squares as there are squares of size 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., min(length, breadth).



      So I would sum them up.



      But when I went through the other people solutions, all of them are doing it as follows:



      $$ans = frac(length*breadth)gcd(length*breadth)^2$$



      Can anyone explain me how the above equation is an answer to the given problem and how is it derived. The reason why am I asking for help is I just don't want to copy paste or memorize this formula, rather I want to understand the steps how they came to this equation OR it is a standard formula which I am yet unaware of.



      Any help is much appreciated.







      share|cite|improve this question














      I was practicing the following beginner level problem at codechef




      Santosh has a farm at Byteland. He has a very big family to look
      after. His life takes a sudden turn and he runs into a financial
      crisis. After giving all the money he has in his hand, he decides to
      sell some parts of his plots. The speciality of his plot is that it is
      rectangular in nature. Santosh comes to know that he will get more
      money if he sells square shaped plots. So keeping this in mind, he
      decides to divide his plot into minimum possible square plots so that
      he can get maximum profit out of this.



      So your task is to find the minimum number of square plots that can be
      formed out of the rectangular plot.



      Input



      The input consists of T number of test cases. T lines follow. Each
      line consists of two integers N and M which denotes the length and
      breadth of the rectangle.



      Output



      Output is a single line which denotes the minimum number of square
      plots that can be formed



      Constraints



      1<=T<=20

      1<=M<=10000

      1<=N<=10000



      Input:



      2



      10 15



      4 6



      Output:



      6



      6




      My approach was there could be large number of possible small squares as there are squares of size 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., min(length, breadth).



      So I would sum them up.



      But when I went through the other people solutions, all of them are doing it as follows:



      $$ans = frac(length*breadth)gcd(length*breadth)^2$$



      Can anyone explain me how the above equation is an answer to the given problem and how is it derived. The reason why am I asking for help is I just don't want to copy paste or memorize this formula, rather I want to understand the steps how they came to this equation OR it is a standard formula which I am yet unaware of.



      Any help is much appreciated.









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 19 at 16:32









      Moo

      4,7533920




      4,7533920










      asked Aug 19 at 6:36









      user3243499

      180110




      180110




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          There is an error that probably you made transcribing the formula used by the other people, it should be



          $$rm ans = fraclength times breathgcd(length, breath)^2 $$



          Notice that the $gcd$ function in the denominator is doing anything useful only when applying it to $2$ or more operands, not to just one as you did above.



          That formula is the solution to a slightly different problem than stated, namely when all the plots of land not only have to be square, but also the same size. Maybe that was the intention of the problem, but it certainly is not stated.



          For example, for $rm length = 3, breath = 4$, that formula says the answer is $12$, which amounts to getting $12$ $1times1$ plots. Of course, you can devide this area into 4 squares: one is $3 times 3$, the other 3 are $1 times 1$.



          That the given formula is a solution to the altered problem is easy to so, as the common side length of the small square plots needs to divide both the breath and the length of the original farm. The greatest values to do that (which produces the smallest number of plots) is the gcd of both values.



          That means you get $rm fraclengthgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the length direction of the farm and $rm fracbreathgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the breath direction. Multiply both values and you get the formula above.



          The problem you tried to solve (allowing different sizes of plots) may be very hard or very easy (just get the biggest square possible from the remaining farm, the continue recursivly), I'm not sure.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • You seemed to have posted your answer twice.
            – Jazzachi
            Aug 19 at 7:10










          • Yes, that was due to an edit which incorrectly came out as a new post. I deleted the one version that the above one superseded. Basically it's the last paragraph, where I'm not sure about the difficulty of the problem the OP tried to solve.
            – Ingix
            Aug 19 at 7:24

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          The answer makes sense if all square plots must be the same area.



          In that case, note that $MN$ is the total area of the rectangle, and $gcd(M,N)$ is the maximum side length of a square which can tesselate the rectangle. Thus, the number of square plots total is $MN/gcd(M,N)^2$, and this is minimized when the square's side length is maximized.



          To see why the maximum side length of square plots is $gcd(M,N)$, first assume you tiled the entire plot with squares of side length $x$. Now suppose $x$ is not a common divisor of $M$ and $N$, so either $x nmid M$ or $x nmid N$. WLOG let $x nmid M$; then, we can write $M = qx + r$ for some $0 < r < m$. You cannot tesselate the $M$ by $N$ rectangle with only $x$ by $x$ squares since there would be $r$ units of length remaining in the plot, and that remaining area is too narrow to be tiled by $x$ by $x$ squares. By contradiction, $x$ must be a common divisor of $M$ and $N$. Since choosing the greatest common divisor leads to the fewest square plots, that is the optimal choice.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );








             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2887420%2fnot-able-to-understand-the-solution-of-a-simple-math-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote













            There is an error that probably you made transcribing the formula used by the other people, it should be



            $$rm ans = fraclength times breathgcd(length, breath)^2 $$



            Notice that the $gcd$ function in the denominator is doing anything useful only when applying it to $2$ or more operands, not to just one as you did above.



            That formula is the solution to a slightly different problem than stated, namely when all the plots of land not only have to be square, but also the same size. Maybe that was the intention of the problem, but it certainly is not stated.



            For example, for $rm length = 3, breath = 4$, that formula says the answer is $12$, which amounts to getting $12$ $1times1$ plots. Of course, you can devide this area into 4 squares: one is $3 times 3$, the other 3 are $1 times 1$.



            That the given formula is a solution to the altered problem is easy to so, as the common side length of the small square plots needs to divide both the breath and the length of the original farm. The greatest values to do that (which produces the smallest number of plots) is the gcd of both values.



            That means you get $rm fraclengthgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the length direction of the farm and $rm fracbreathgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the breath direction. Multiply both values and you get the formula above.



            The problem you tried to solve (allowing different sizes of plots) may be very hard or very easy (just get the biggest square possible from the remaining farm, the continue recursivly), I'm not sure.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • You seemed to have posted your answer twice.
              – Jazzachi
              Aug 19 at 7:10










            • Yes, that was due to an edit which incorrectly came out as a new post. I deleted the one version that the above one superseded. Basically it's the last paragraph, where I'm not sure about the difficulty of the problem the OP tried to solve.
              – Ingix
              Aug 19 at 7:24














            up vote
            1
            down vote













            There is an error that probably you made transcribing the formula used by the other people, it should be



            $$rm ans = fraclength times breathgcd(length, breath)^2 $$



            Notice that the $gcd$ function in the denominator is doing anything useful only when applying it to $2$ or more operands, not to just one as you did above.



            That formula is the solution to a slightly different problem than stated, namely when all the plots of land not only have to be square, but also the same size. Maybe that was the intention of the problem, but it certainly is not stated.



            For example, for $rm length = 3, breath = 4$, that formula says the answer is $12$, which amounts to getting $12$ $1times1$ plots. Of course, you can devide this area into 4 squares: one is $3 times 3$, the other 3 are $1 times 1$.



            That the given formula is a solution to the altered problem is easy to so, as the common side length of the small square plots needs to divide both the breath and the length of the original farm. The greatest values to do that (which produces the smallest number of plots) is the gcd of both values.



            That means you get $rm fraclengthgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the length direction of the farm and $rm fracbreathgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the breath direction. Multiply both values and you get the formula above.



            The problem you tried to solve (allowing different sizes of plots) may be very hard or very easy (just get the biggest square possible from the remaining farm, the continue recursivly), I'm not sure.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • You seemed to have posted your answer twice.
              – Jazzachi
              Aug 19 at 7:10










            • Yes, that was due to an edit which incorrectly came out as a new post. I deleted the one version that the above one superseded. Basically it's the last paragraph, where I'm not sure about the difficulty of the problem the OP tried to solve.
              – Ingix
              Aug 19 at 7:24












            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            There is an error that probably you made transcribing the formula used by the other people, it should be



            $$rm ans = fraclength times breathgcd(length, breath)^2 $$



            Notice that the $gcd$ function in the denominator is doing anything useful only when applying it to $2$ or more operands, not to just one as you did above.



            That formula is the solution to a slightly different problem than stated, namely when all the plots of land not only have to be square, but also the same size. Maybe that was the intention of the problem, but it certainly is not stated.



            For example, for $rm length = 3, breath = 4$, that formula says the answer is $12$, which amounts to getting $12$ $1times1$ plots. Of course, you can devide this area into 4 squares: one is $3 times 3$, the other 3 are $1 times 1$.



            That the given formula is a solution to the altered problem is easy to so, as the common side length of the small square plots needs to divide both the breath and the length of the original farm. The greatest values to do that (which produces the smallest number of plots) is the gcd of both values.



            That means you get $rm fraclengthgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the length direction of the farm and $rm fracbreathgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the breath direction. Multiply both values and you get the formula above.



            The problem you tried to solve (allowing different sizes of plots) may be very hard or very easy (just get the biggest square possible from the remaining farm, the continue recursivly), I'm not sure.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            There is an error that probably you made transcribing the formula used by the other people, it should be



            $$rm ans = fraclength times breathgcd(length, breath)^2 $$



            Notice that the $gcd$ function in the denominator is doing anything useful only when applying it to $2$ or more operands, not to just one as you did above.



            That formula is the solution to a slightly different problem than stated, namely when all the plots of land not only have to be square, but also the same size. Maybe that was the intention of the problem, but it certainly is not stated.



            For example, for $rm length = 3, breath = 4$, that formula says the answer is $12$, which amounts to getting $12$ $1times1$ plots. Of course, you can devide this area into 4 squares: one is $3 times 3$, the other 3 are $1 times 1$.



            That the given formula is a solution to the altered problem is easy to so, as the common side length of the small square plots needs to divide both the breath and the length of the original farm. The greatest values to do that (which produces the smallest number of plots) is the gcd of both values.



            That means you get $rm fraclengthgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the length direction of the farm and $rm fracbreathgcd(length, breath)$ small plots in the breath direction. Multiply both values and you get the formula above.



            The problem you tried to solve (allowing different sizes of plots) may be very hard or very easy (just get the biggest square possible from the remaining farm, the continue recursivly), I'm not sure.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Aug 19 at 7:08









            Ingix

            2,225125




            2,225125











            • You seemed to have posted your answer twice.
              – Jazzachi
              Aug 19 at 7:10










            • Yes, that was due to an edit which incorrectly came out as a new post. I deleted the one version that the above one superseded. Basically it's the last paragraph, where I'm not sure about the difficulty of the problem the OP tried to solve.
              – Ingix
              Aug 19 at 7:24
















            • You seemed to have posted your answer twice.
              – Jazzachi
              Aug 19 at 7:10










            • Yes, that was due to an edit which incorrectly came out as a new post. I deleted the one version that the above one superseded. Basically it's the last paragraph, where I'm not sure about the difficulty of the problem the OP tried to solve.
              – Ingix
              Aug 19 at 7:24















            You seemed to have posted your answer twice.
            – Jazzachi
            Aug 19 at 7:10




            You seemed to have posted your answer twice.
            – Jazzachi
            Aug 19 at 7:10












            Yes, that was due to an edit which incorrectly came out as a new post. I deleted the one version that the above one superseded. Basically it's the last paragraph, where I'm not sure about the difficulty of the problem the OP tried to solve.
            – Ingix
            Aug 19 at 7:24




            Yes, that was due to an edit which incorrectly came out as a new post. I deleted the one version that the above one superseded. Basically it's the last paragraph, where I'm not sure about the difficulty of the problem the OP tried to solve.
            – Ingix
            Aug 19 at 7:24










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            The answer makes sense if all square plots must be the same area.



            In that case, note that $MN$ is the total area of the rectangle, and $gcd(M,N)$ is the maximum side length of a square which can tesselate the rectangle. Thus, the number of square plots total is $MN/gcd(M,N)^2$, and this is minimized when the square's side length is maximized.



            To see why the maximum side length of square plots is $gcd(M,N)$, first assume you tiled the entire plot with squares of side length $x$. Now suppose $x$ is not a common divisor of $M$ and $N$, so either $x nmid M$ or $x nmid N$. WLOG let $x nmid M$; then, we can write $M = qx + r$ for some $0 < r < m$. You cannot tesselate the $M$ by $N$ rectangle with only $x$ by $x$ squares since there would be $r$ units of length remaining in the plot, and that remaining area is too narrow to be tiled by $x$ by $x$ squares. By contradiction, $x$ must be a common divisor of $M$ and $N$. Since choosing the greatest common divisor leads to the fewest square plots, that is the optimal choice.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              The answer makes sense if all square plots must be the same area.



              In that case, note that $MN$ is the total area of the rectangle, and $gcd(M,N)$ is the maximum side length of a square which can tesselate the rectangle. Thus, the number of square plots total is $MN/gcd(M,N)^2$, and this is minimized when the square's side length is maximized.



              To see why the maximum side length of square plots is $gcd(M,N)$, first assume you tiled the entire plot with squares of side length $x$. Now suppose $x$ is not a common divisor of $M$ and $N$, so either $x nmid M$ or $x nmid N$. WLOG let $x nmid M$; then, we can write $M = qx + r$ for some $0 < r < m$. You cannot tesselate the $M$ by $N$ rectangle with only $x$ by $x$ squares since there would be $r$ units of length remaining in the plot, and that remaining area is too narrow to be tiled by $x$ by $x$ squares. By contradiction, $x$ must be a common divisor of $M$ and $N$. Since choosing the greatest common divisor leads to the fewest square plots, that is the optimal choice.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                The answer makes sense if all square plots must be the same area.



                In that case, note that $MN$ is the total area of the rectangle, and $gcd(M,N)$ is the maximum side length of a square which can tesselate the rectangle. Thus, the number of square plots total is $MN/gcd(M,N)^2$, and this is minimized when the square's side length is maximized.



                To see why the maximum side length of square plots is $gcd(M,N)$, first assume you tiled the entire plot with squares of side length $x$. Now suppose $x$ is not a common divisor of $M$ and $N$, so either $x nmid M$ or $x nmid N$. WLOG let $x nmid M$; then, we can write $M = qx + r$ for some $0 < r < m$. You cannot tesselate the $M$ by $N$ rectangle with only $x$ by $x$ squares since there would be $r$ units of length remaining in the plot, and that remaining area is too narrow to be tiled by $x$ by $x$ squares. By contradiction, $x$ must be a common divisor of $M$ and $N$. Since choosing the greatest common divisor leads to the fewest square plots, that is the optimal choice.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                The answer makes sense if all square plots must be the same area.



                In that case, note that $MN$ is the total area of the rectangle, and $gcd(M,N)$ is the maximum side length of a square which can tesselate the rectangle. Thus, the number of square plots total is $MN/gcd(M,N)^2$, and this is minimized when the square's side length is maximized.



                To see why the maximum side length of square plots is $gcd(M,N)$, first assume you tiled the entire plot with squares of side length $x$. Now suppose $x$ is not a common divisor of $M$ and $N$, so either $x nmid M$ or $x nmid N$. WLOG let $x nmid M$; then, we can write $M = qx + r$ for some $0 < r < m$. You cannot tesselate the $M$ by $N$ rectangle with only $x$ by $x$ squares since there would be $r$ units of length remaining in the plot, and that remaining area is too narrow to be tiled by $x$ by $x$ squares. By contradiction, $x$ must be a common divisor of $M$ and $N$. Since choosing the greatest common divisor leads to the fewest square plots, that is the optimal choice.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Aug 19 at 7:11









                theyaoster

                1,210313




                1,210313






















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded


























                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2887420%2fnot-able-to-understand-the-solution-of-a-simple-math-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                    How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                    Mutual Information Always Non-negative

                    Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?